thenumberone : That is completely untrue. You said it yourself, criminals are not stupid. I guarantee you they would rather live than have a few extra bucks. They would not attack if that person had a gun. How many crimes do you know of that happen in firing ranges? None. Because there are guns there, and criminals know to stay away. Now how many crimes do you know of that happen in schools? A lot. Because schools are GUN FREE ZONES. You see the pattern or no?

thenumberone : Though you may be somewhat right about that...

The proliferation of guns would be helpful because, People are somewhat afraid of guns. Guns are intimidating. Some might think that criminals don't have a conscience or morals, But you're right, They do. But to have such morals you would have somewhat control over your mind... fear is all in your head, thus, why having more guns in an area would be conscious of the guns, and would think twice about robbing a place, or at least that's how I see it.

I also said they are desperate and will do stupid things if they feel its necessary.
Why the hell would they stick up a range when stores have thousands of dollars?
I suppose if the airforce just starts dropping guns into neighbour hoods America will teraform into the promised land.
Iv met a lot of people in my life, many morons and bad people amongst them. Knowing They were all armed wouldn't make me feel more secure, just give me another thing to worry about.

thenumberone : Exactly. Why do they go to the store instead of the gun range? BECAUSE THERE ARE GUNS IN THE GUN RANGE.

You don't seem to realize that if criminals want a gun, they will get a gun whether it is legal or not. The average Joe on the other hand, will not have a gun because he follows the law. So yes. It wouldn't be smart to just airdrop weapons into neighborhoods, but it would make the world safer. It would give everyone weapons, not just the criminals.

I think it is time to just call me a racist and walk away.

thenumberone : a life where no one has to die? you live in a fantasy world man. there will always be death, there will always be crime, stricter gun law does not change anything. the world is not cake and ice cream or sunshine and lollipop's, there will never be a utopia. the world is a dark, sick place and firearm's give the decent people a means of personal protection. criminals will have weapons, bottom line. fire arms turn the tide from decent people dying and the criminals dying, which would you prefer? an honest, hard working family man being brutally shot to death after being tortured in the psychos basement for a week or the family man having a means of personal protection and cleaning up the streets at the same time? you have to pick one, there is unfortunately no third choice. its a dark, cynical view of life, but that's life, that's what reality is.

But, the real question (this is at thenumberone)Is, Would you rather live in fear of people owning guns yet having a safe world, Or live in comfort knowing that the odds are in the criminals favor when it comes to them robbing a place.



Do the law UNforcers really do their job? I mean, most people would live in fear of a criminal breaking into their house... I've actually seen it happen to a friend of mine because I was in a bad neighborhood.. Do you think they would think "Oh,There's a lot of gun laws, so there are slim chances of any criminals having guns and stuff, I've got nothing to worry about"? Even if you live in fear, At least you're actually LIVING don't you think?



People would be afraid of people with guns unless they had one to defend themselves with... And so, I don't think you should be forced to have a gun, But rather just make it easier for the people who want to live safely to get a firearm.



Most peoples logic is clouded over with emotion no?

And you dont seem to realise the way the world works. In your mind the criminal just commits crime because they feel iis easy, and if it Stops being easy they will turn from from crime.
You keep guarenteeing me that they will simply up and disappear but what evidence is there? You think they will just fly off into the sunset? If anything, they will become more desperate, and more dangerous.
"time to just call me a racist"
What? Seriously? Do you understand the definition of racist? When was race brought into this discussion?

m0ssb3rg935 :
My comment was relevant to that scenario which you gave me, a robbery. And absolutely no one need die there.
Exactly What imperical data do you have to support the claim more guns = less crime and death.
Almost none of the criminals here have guns which is weird because by your claim, if any civilians has no gun the criminals will come at them with ak47 's and anti tank missiles. Since they apparently find it so easy to get weapons.

thenumberone : So your telling me that if all citizens were armed with guns the crime rate would not go down? I am not saying that there would be no crime, but there would definitely be less. And I know liberals are so fond of accusing people of racism, especially when they are losing an argument. I hust figued it was around the time you would call me a racist and admit defeat.

tgags123 :
Your statements are naive. I think you really need to grow up before trying to have a debate.

"I know liberals are so fond of accusing people of racism, especially when they are losing an argument. I hust figued it was around the time you would call me a racist and admit defeat."

This is the kind of logic 12 year olds on YouTube make. Cant think what to say, lets start grouping.
Blacks, criminals.
Southerners, inbred.
Americans, retards.
Russian, evil.
Conservatives, greedy fanatical Christians.

You may think making such statements is relevant, but it really isn't.
In fact, whenever you post a thread in the debate forum, you're attitude seems to be, if you dont think my take is right, its because you're stupid.
Exhibit A, from "All you Democrats out there are going to hate this" :

All poor people are poor because they are lazy, its their fault.
Exhibit B, from "The wise words of my grandpa ":
"The other day my grandpa said something awesome. He said "If you are under 18 and you are a democrat, you don't know better. But if you are over 18 and you were a democrat, you are just stupid.""
Exhibit C, From this very thread:


I think if we are going by summary, we can get this for you. 'Do you agree with me?Yes?Excellent, I like you. Do you disagree with me? Yes?My God you're a moron.'

And yet, you are the one pre-empting the race card, no one brought it up, just you. And yet I'm the liberal and you're the conservative. Do you understand the meaning of Irony?
Anyway, feel free to down rate this post like you've done with every other one, im sure it'll make you feel better kiddo.
At any rate, I'm done with this thread, apparently it should be in the child forum, not the debate one, since you have no interest in actually debating.

thenumberone : When I post a thread in the debate forum, my attitude is "I am right and I will defend my points". Obviously that is everyone's attitude in a debate. I dont know anyone that gets into an debate with a "I am wrong" attitude. Also I think you may need to go back to first grade if you didn't understand the $50 lesson. It is saying that the working people should not be forced to pay the people that dont work. That is unfair and just flat out stupid. And I never said anything about someone's race, I simply said the liberals love accusing people of racism. "Oh you don't like Obama? It must be because he is black! Uou racist!" I can't tell you how many times I have heard that. Also, my age means nothing. I have been debating with you, and I've been winning. You just dont want to admit it, so you resort to trying to offend me. Clealy YOU have no interest in actually debating, as shown by your last post.

yoshirulez! :

I don't think your government wants to disarm you. My point is that I think you are overreacting. The gun laws are not there to take your guns away. I used what we have here as an example of a place where we have strict gun laws but we still have lots and lots of guns. Yet ofcource, our gun culture is way different. I just don't understand where you get this paranoia. If you hate your own government so much you can always move somewhere you like it better. In commie countries this was not an option, eh?

If you wish, you can read my post about how the "outlaws" have guns and use them here and also see the statistics I posted.

There was some talk here also about getting more strict gun laws after some school shootings but they never went anywhere and they were ridiculous to begin with.

m0ssb3rg935

Finland. The one which has more guns per capita than the US, Yemen and Serbia. And true, sorry about that. So shoot me.

Hey I just tried to lighten up man?

tgags123 : its sad when a little girl understands but multiple nations and governments don't huh?

Brigand : I fully believe that our current government wants to disarm us more then anything else, I also fully believe it is completely beyond there means. The day they officially make firearms ownership unlawful will be a laugh watching them try to enforce it.

Finland huh? whats it like there? Lots of mountain's and snow?

m0ssb3rg935 :

Do you have anything to back up that claim? Like a link where some government representative actually says "we are actually going to take each and every gun away from all American citizens". Plus it would be unrealistic to even try. It would never work. You have so many guns to begin with that it would be impossible. Plus you have the gun lobby to make sure that not even a sane restriction will ever go through.

No mountains, had less snow this year in a hundred years but we do have guns.

sloanstar1000 :

How much should citizens be able to defend themselves form the government?

Well, let's take a look at all the times that our own United states mistreated it's own citizens.

Do remember reading about how our government captured many American citizens of Japanese decent during world war II?

How about back when the United Federation (States) refused to pay it's soldiers, so the soldiers protested in front of Washington DC. The government chased them off with weapons, that's what they did. That should not have happened, those people were innocent, normal Americans, perhaps not all of them, but sometimes the government just does as it pleases. Yes, I think that we have the rights to bear military grade weapons, after all, a Tyrant's worst enemy is his own people. We should not allow ourselves to be governed by a tyrant, nor should we be unprepared for bad events. I think that it's dumb to suggest that the government would never do something horrible, and I know that you're not suggesting that per say, but the better the weapons that we have, the better we are prepared for when it happens, and the less likely it is to happen.

I do not trust our government one bit.

look how much trash it already get's away with. Hilary may as well just come out and say that her husband set people up and got them killed.

BTW

Obama lliw declare marshal and get a third term. It's already been set in place. 

tgags123 : There's no reason to be upset, I can understand your position, but it's hard to communicate on the internet nicely because you can't use voice inflections etc. You are a smart kid, you remind me of myself at that age a lot. XD but calm down a little, if someone is wrong, then it's their loss. Although I hate the majority forcing us to live in a society where weed becomes legal etc. I know that it can get hot in a debate, but I think that you misunderstand thenumberone. He's not a bad guy.

thenumberone :

I understand what you are saying, and yes, it is true that criminals will become more and more desperate, that is a great point, but why do most people turn to stealing?

Some of them lost their job, so they to crack open a cash register, but, if they know that the person who owns the store has a gun, it may deter them. 

Yes, they could kill the person, but that puts them even worse off, because now he has become a priority for the law to hunt down, and when he is found, he may well lose his life.

A store owner can deal with a criminal faster than the police force can. What if a rape is going on? Time is very important in such a situation.

And what's to stop the criminal from shooting a gunless store owner? Nothing unless he's worried bout body count. And yes, owning a gun may encourage the criminal to get in a fire fight, but if he actually kills the store owner, then he's a murderer, and a top priority for the law to hunt down. Most criminals just want to get the dough and use the gun as a way to force people to give them what they want, but they despair a body count and will do anything to avoid it.

Then there are the high end "professional" criminals, and oh yes, they will go a lot farther than your average Joe. But I still see no harm in letting normal people having guns to defend themselves in such situations. High end criminals will get guns either way, but law abiding citizens will not. They will be helpless in such a situation. The police is not

A gun offers a chance at success in deterring the criminal. Also, most people who own guns are good people, not bad people, at least here in the US.

In the end, I don't trust anyone I don't know with a gun. Not the government, not another random person. The first thing that I want to do is gain the power of life and death myself, because I can trust myself to use it the right way and for good.

I hope that I did not come across wrongly in this post, and I don't think that I'll post here much, but I though that I'd put this in. :3

Sword legion : You may find that I distrust the government(the police especially) more than most people.

Yes, I know about Japanese internment camps, I also know about the soldiers who got chased away by the government. It would be nice if we were on equal military footing as our government so we could defend ourselves, but you didn't address my point as to why I think it's a ludicrous pipe dream that simply isn't going to happen, nor do I think it should happen.

Let's say we(the government rather) decide to allow hundreds of millions of adult Americans access to the same weapons our government has so we can properly defend ourselves from the government. Weapons like predator drones, Abrams tanks, high powered sniper rifles, long range cruise missiles...

I really don't think I should have to explain how this scenario could be just as bad, and most likely much worse than any "government take-over" scenario. I'd be a lot more paranoid about any tom, dick or harry having access to a predator drone, than I would be paranoid about the government attacking it's citizens for no reason, that was really my only point.(I think we should actually be more worried about our government harming other country's citizens atm anyway)

I'm all for people having access to certain weapons for self defense, but it's a bit more complicated than "you have a big gun, I have a big gun, now we're all safe".

BTW, I seriously doubt Obama will declare Martial Law to stay in for another term... You really think congress would approve? lol.

You probably heard this from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, or just one of the many fear-mongering, radio-host lunatics who pull these conspiracies from their backsides all day. The theory is not only very implausible, but there's simply no evidence for it.

tgags123 : (summons fail, again)

You said: "When I post a thread in the debate forum, my attitude is "I am right and
I will defend my points". Obviously that is everyone's attitude in a
debate."

I would just like to point out that not everyone has this attitude in a debate, because that attitude makes even having a debate a pointless effort. I try to go into every debate with an attitude that I might be wrong, because if I am wrong, that's something I want to fix.

We all have a natural proclivity to reconfirm our own opinions, but if you want to expand your knowledge, you have to be willing to be wrong sometimes.

sloanstar1000 :


I see your point, but I would disagree with it because many weapons are too expensive for people to purchase ie tanks. And I don't think that those are necessarily the best weapons for defending yourself against the government, because most likely we would do gruerrilla warfare, particularly because those who could afford tanks wouldn't be able to fight along side many other tanks, due to a lack of other people being able to afford tanks. And I think that a tank might end up more as a burden.

Explosives are all to easy to make using toasters and fertilizer. :/ I know that If I were a rebel in some evil coutry that I would use lots and lots of explosives. Albeit homemade explosives aren't the greatest.



I'll just tell you to sit and wait on the Obama thing. But I guarantee that it will happen. In reality, I can't. But I'm pretty sure that this will come to happen.

Brigand : I don't have anything really to back up my claim, but its certainly evident by there actions. After all, communism takes a very long time to set up and is taken in baby steps. some laws may actually be made with good intentions, but most are about the gradual attainment of power, and power always corrupts. That's the nature of government. And your right, it would be down right dumb for them to even try.

Sword legion : I don't think he will declare martial law, and if he does he is only kidding himself.

sloanstar1000 : first of all, the radio hosts mentioned are not fear mongering, although they do get exited. and second, are we really comparing a varmint rifle equipped with a 30rd mag with tanks, cruise missiles, and drones or am I missing something? If I am, please correct me. as i have already said, its not military grade unless it is either selective fire, burst fire, or fully-automatic. and the whole "high powered sniper rifle", there is only one difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle, only the person operating the equipment. most military sniper rifles are of the 7.62x51 nato which is nothing but a military loading of the .308 winchester. and i dare say that a .30/.378 weatherby is a great deal more powerful than a .308.

Banning guns no... Regulation, yes. You see, taking away guns wont solve anything, it seems like a good solution on paper, but in reality, if you really wanted a gun, you could easily get it from a contraband street dealer, making one or importing one illegally, it's really not that hard to get a gun, even if they are banned as it would cause more harm than good. I DO belive however that regulating guns to make them more dificult to buy from a vendor, criminals may still get a hold of them, but as will civilians (yes they need them, have you ever tried defending yourself with a crossbow =/). Also no guns WILL make hunting require more skills and thus less people will participate and hunting is part of our economy and for some working class families, a food source (hunting is cheaper, and more memorable) if rifles and shotguns were illegal, then they could not hunt (crossbows are actually less cost effective than guns).Also the united states isn't even close to having the highest homicide rate, Canada the "Peaceful" country has a higher homicide rate rate despite having a significantly lower gun rate per capita, and african countries have an extremely lower guns per capita (less than 5 per every 100 people) yet have a significantly higher homicide rate. Wake up America guns are not the reason for crimes. Poverty is more of an issue, if you're hungry you'll want food, how do you get food if you have no money? You steal it,or you fight for it. Yes the poor can get guns as I've said before even if you ban them it's easy to get your hands on one. I could ramble and rant all day on how ignorant we are as a country, but nobody will listen, and things will continue on, I only hope we can figure this out before it's too late.

tornadocam : Speaking of Piers Morgan, just thought I should share this: